Posted March 25, 201510 yr Article: http://www.columbusunderground.com/17-story-mixed-use-building-announced-for-columbus-commons Location: http://goo.gl/maps/P1CDl "The building will house 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail, 125,000 square feet of Class A office space on five floors, and 11 stories containing 170 apartment and condo units." It is a $90 million project and is set to open in 2017-18.
March 25, 201510 yr I just came over here to post this! A 17-story building sounds great. We are starting to see more height in these projects. I like the rendering too.
March 25, 201510 yr http://www.columbusunderground.com/17-story-mixed-use-building-announced-for-columbus-commons Looks good. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 25, 201510 yr This looks great. This combined with 250 High will bring a nice bit of modern design to that part of Columbus. I'm really hoping our similarly scaled 4th and Race project here in Cincy is of this level of design. This looks fantastic and will be a great asset for Columbus Commons.
March 25, 201510 yr A little more from the Dispatch: High-rise to complete Columbus Commons By Steve Wartenberg, The Columbus Dispatch Wednesday, March 25, 2015 - 5:00 AM The final piece for completing development around Columbus Commons is in place, as city officials and two developers are expected to announce plans today for a 17-story, mixed-use building on the southeast corner of the popular park. Officials say this will be an important piece for the continued revitalization of Downtown. The Daimler Group and Kaufman Development will build Two25 Commons, a $90 million project similar to their nearby 12-story 250 High project under construction. Two25 will feature retail space on the first floor, office space on the next five floors and 170 residential units on the top 11 floors. “We started with 9 acres and we’ve now completed our development around the permanent 6 acres” of the park, said Guy Worley, CEO of Capitol South, which owns and operates Columbus Commons. MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2015/03/25/last-park-high-rise-to-celebrate-good-views.html Location map:
March 25, 201510 yr More about Two25 from Business First: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2015/03/25/columbus-commons-getting-17-story-high-rise.html
March 25, 201510 yr The building looks great, although I am disappointed to see another skywalk. The comments in the Dispatch article by city leaders make me want to scream, however. The rush to build was the problem (with Highpoint). And I can name many better sites in Ohio; at least much hotter sites.
March 26, 201510 yr I was initially concerned by the loss of decent historic buildings combined with the development Carter delivered. That said, this area is finally attaining a higher and better use. Kudos to the local development teams for delivering first-class redevelopment on the City Center site.
March 26, 201510 yr :clap: :clap: :clap: Wow! What a great project for this site. I'm glad to see the apparent success of 250 High is spurring more development from the same team so quickly. I especially liked this quote in the Dispatch article, The demand for Downtown office space is on the rise, said Bob White Jr., president of Daimler. “We’ve had a few office users we couldn’t accommodate at 250 High, either because of the amount of space they needed or the time frame,” he said. The plan for 125,000 square feet of office space on five floors could change. “If one user wanted 400,000 square feet, at this stage we could accommodate them,” White said, adding they could add more floors of office space and extend Two25 higher into the Columbus skyline.
March 26, 201510 yr :clap: :clap: :clap: Wow! What a great project for this site. I'm glad to see the apparent success of 250 High is spurring more development from the same team so quickly. I especially liked this quote in the Dispatch article, The demand for Downtown office space is on the rise, said Bob White Jr., president of Daimler. “We’ve had a few office users we couldn’t accommodate at 250 High, either because of the amount of space they needed or the time frame,” he said. The plan for 125,000 square feet of office space on five floors could change. “If one user wanted 400,000 square feet, at this stage we could accommodate them,” White said, adding they could add more floors of office space and extend Two25 higher into the Columbus skyline. I'd love that of course, but I'm pretty happy with 17-stories. One thing I don't want to see is them downsizing their plans. I hate when something spectacular is proposed and the end product is lackluster. Hopefully these projects will keep popping up in this area of downtown.
March 28, 201510 yr One thing that drives me crazy about Columbus, that this development is a brief window to take a crack at, is that the 270 corridor is riddled with easy space. Whenever Columbus puts together an economic development deal, they use that space. Ginther tried to get Bob Evans on 270 for instance, and then attacked them for going to "suburban" New Albany as if it's any different. I would really, really like to see the city's ED people and the Columbus Partnership try to put a deal together for this 400,000 sf of space. Granted, if Two25 gets any more impressive, we will just have to demolish HighPoint across the street...
March 30, 201510 yr One thing that drives me crazy about Columbus, that this development is a brief window to take a crack at, is that the 270 corridor is riddled with easy space. Whenever Columbus puts together an economic development deal, they use that space. Ginther tried to get Bob Evans on 270 for instance, and then attacked them for going to "suburban" New Albany as if it's any different. I would really, really like to see the city's ED people and the Columbus Partnership try to put a deal together for this 400,000 sf of space. Granted, if Two25 gets any more impressive, we will just have to demolish HighPoint across the street... We're going to be stuck with HP for a long time to come. That's why it's so important to get it as best as it can be the first time. The design of the LC and Two25 projects will only make HP all that much worse. Carter should've stayed in Atlanta.
August 11, 20159 yr Daimler/Kaufman is beginning to complete construction of their nearby 12-story 250 S. High Street project. And according to Business First's latest report on that project - http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/print-edition/2015/08/07/250-high-project-gets-first-tenant.html - only 16,000 sq. ft. of the available 135,000 sq. ft. of office space in 250 S. High Street remains unleased. The 120 apartments at 250 S. High Street are still being worked on and have not yet begun leasing. From that same article: "As the 250 High building wraps up, Daimler and Kaufman will turn more attention to their 17-story mixed-use tower at Third and Rich streets. “We’re trying to determine the density of office space and apartments,” said Greg Weber, Daimler leasing agent, of the $90 million Two25 Commons project. “We’re ramping up the design and anticipate being able to break ground in the second or third quarter of 2016,” he said of the Two25 Commons project."
August 11, 20159 yr “We’re trying to determine the density of office space and apartments” The denser the better IMO. Hopefully a strong demand for the apts and office space in 250 High will encourage them to go even bigger than already announced for Two25.
January 29, 20169 yr Modified Columbus Commons project to break ground in September By: Barbara James, The Columbus Dispatch January 28, 2016 - 03:44 PM A mixed-use building seen as the completing piece of Downtown's Columbus Commons park project is expected to break ground in September, with 12 stories planned instead of the 17 stories originally discussed. Two25 Commons, being developed by the Daimler Group and Kaufman Development in cooperation with Capitol South, is expected to be very similar in size and mix of office, residential and retail space to the team's nearly completed 250 High across the street. ( . . . ) Two25 is in the financing and design stage, Robert White Jr., president of Daimler said, and is expected to be fully completed in fall 2018. It doesn't yet have any committed tenants, he said, though it could by the time it breaks ground later this year. MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-bottom-line/2016/01/downtown-development.html
January 29, 20169 yr 12 stories planned instead of the 17 stories originally discussed Let the lamentations begin: http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/two25-17-story-high-rise-proposed-for-se-columbus-commons/page/7
January 29, 20169 yr 12 stories planned instead of the 17 stories originally discussed Let the lamentations begin: http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/two25-17-story-high-rise-proposed-for-se-columbus-commons/page/7 This needs an emoticon! This does not sound like empathy more sarcasm! Are you making fun of us...? *cries* I posted that update over there and I admit, I did lament...but I also noted I was glad the project was moving forward. Look at the comments about it here..hoping for it to go higher, hoping it does not get downsized are mentioned. In fact, I am going to lament here as well. LAAAAMMMMEEEENNNNTTTTT!!!! *wails and beats and kicks floor with hands and feet* Imma come over here and lament every time a Columbus project disappoints...so get ready for some serious lamentation. lol Just wait until that property Nationwide just bought on Spring is announced as a 15 floor.....concrete parking garage with NO residential and NO office and NO groundfloor retail. Everyone on this forum will be able to hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth all the way from Cbus. I need to log off now and get my smelling salts...*now where did I put my aromatics?*
January 30, 20169 yr We all care about urban development here and at CU (otherwise we wouldn't be posting). But the reflexive criticism of almost every project that doesn't meet someone's personal standard has gotten so cliche that even the founder of CU made light of it in this recent post.
January 31, 20169 yr I don't see a big difference between 17 and 12. Now this strikes me as the same condo project going up at Neil & Spring. It's not a bad thing that everything being built in Columbus is around 10 stories. It was a bad thing once upon a time when the only things that got built were between 20 and 40 stories. These scaled-down infill projects are more responsive to their environment and don't require a sea of parking (structured or unstructured) around them. That's the main thing driving this. I'll bet Kaufman and Daimler scaled it down bc there simply isn't any parking available at the Commons Garage anymore. Columbus needs structured parking to enable more building up. It compressed plans on High Street, it compressed these plans on the Commons, it's a big ordeal anytime something is built in the Short North, and it's going to be a big sticking point on the Wolfe site. This of course is assuming that we'll never change. The cities we're competing with (Cincy, Cleve, Pitt) have good enough transit that will free up space in their garages, allowing developers to keep going without being strangled by the parking issue. In Columbus we are absolutely reliant on downtown parking in order to keep development going. This is because we lack the foresight to invest in transit like Kansas City, STL, or Minneapolis. The ROI that Mpls has gotten on their light rail is incredible. They aren't worried about parking holding back their development - instead they just reached 40,000 downtown residents, and are headed to around 75,000 by 2025. Mpls is what Columbus could be if we were 10 years in on an investment like that.
February 1, 20169 yr We all care about urban development here and at CU (otherwise we wouldn't be posting). But the reflexive criticism of almost every project that doesn't meet someone's personal standard has gotten so cliche that even the founder of CU made light of it in this recent post. Yeah it will be ok. At least I get over the disappointment quickly. Someone should remind Walker tho about his laments about the Convention Center...Just sayin' :P This at twelve floors is still going to be great. Much better than a dead mall and it will complete the Commons! :)
February 1, 20169 yr But the reflexive criticism of almost every project that doesn't meet someone's personal standard has gotten so cliche that even the founder of CU made light of it in this recent post. I would equally say that Walker's rose-colored glasses approach to nearly everything that happens in Columbus is equally cliche. He spends so much time reminding CU posters why there is a good reason for whatever is happening and why we should be thankful for it. We do have to figure out a better middle ground to create some constructive conversation about development in Columbus, however.
May 22, 20169 yr A rendering of the new 12-story design for Two25 has been put up on Kaufman Development's website for the project. While I have to say I'm disappointed in the height reduction, the new design still looks pretty great IMO, and will definitely be a striking, modern, and very welcome addition to Downtown.
May 22, 20169 yr Great catch on this updated rendering. The original design was really good - but this one's even better! I agree it's a bummer about the height reduction. But this would still be a stunning addition to Columbus Commons if Kaufman builds this design.
May 23, 20169 yr Yeah, this is a case where less really is more. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
May 23, 20169 yr I like the look of the building even with the shorter height. I am disappointed that the developer finds it necessary to build a pedestrian bridge across Rich St. to the existing parking garage.
May 24, 20169 yr I like the look of the building even with the shorter height. I am disappointed that the developer finds it necessary to build a pedestrian bridge across Rich St. to the existing parking garage. Yeah, I hope the Downtown Commission rejects that, but I'm sure the developer will claim it's a necessity and that it won't have an impact on street activity when it obviously will. Skywalks are so outdated and represent outdated thinking.
May 24, 20169 yr I am disappointed that the developer finds it necessary to build a pedestrian bridge across Rich St. to the existing parking garage. Yeah, I just saw the rendering of the bridge over Rich Street from the two sources linked below. It is definitely non-optimal: http://www.columbusunderground.com/two25-commons-bw1 http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/05/23/first-look-60m-two25-project-at-columbus-commons.html
May 24, 20169 yr Yeah, I hope the Downtown Commission rejects that, but I'm sure the developer will claim it's a necessity and that it won't have an impact on street activity when it obviously will. Skywalks are so outdated and represent outdated thinking. Well . . . Walker's report from today's Downtown Commission meeting: Downtown Commission Likes Two25 Commons, Dislikes Elevated Walkway: http://www.columbusunderground.com/two25-commons-update
May 24, 20169 yr Good that the commission pushed back on the bridge. The mid block crossing was installed during the construction of Columbus Commons. Conduits are in place to install a pedestrian operated crossing signal - a lot cheaper than a bridge!
May 26, 20169 yr Two25 developers ‘very nervous’ about pedestrian safety at Columbus Commons The final high-rise planned on Columbus Commons park is earning positive feedback for its design, but developers of the Two25 building must resolve one issue. As expected, Daimler Group Inc. and Kaufman Development faced questions from Downtown Commissioners this week about an elevated pedestrian bridge included in the project. It would connect the 12-story office and residential building with a parking garage south of Rich Street. More below: http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2016/05/26/two25-developers-very-nervous-about-pedestrian.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
May 27, 20169 yr ^ What the heck is the speed limit there? In that rendering it looks as if some Formula-1 cars are about to round that corner!
May 27, 20169 yr I generally don't like the elevated walkways either, but it really is just a garage connector. No different really than the garage planned for the millenial tower. people are going to go down to their car from the office or apartment/condo and bypass everything(including the lower retail) if they want. This is no different really, except they are going across the street as well. If it was something where people are carried past three blocks of busy shops and restaurants I could see the problem, but aside from the ugliness of these things, I don't see how it will really impact 'the street' in any real way. It may look like there are fewer people on the street, but those people who would be on the street without the walkway would just be waiting to cross to the garage anyway in this case. Sometimes I think it is as much the idea of the walkways and what they often represent( less people on the street actually doing things like going into stores, etc. -and the ugliness of them) than what they really are doing. A few people might not stop in the lower level to do something, a few less people waiting to cross a street. It is not like the street being walked over is lined with lively shops and restaurants. If this was Gay street between High and Third then ya, it would be very problematic. The main problem with this thing (to me)is that these walkways are almost always visually distracting and ugly. But I have to admit if I was one of the workers or residents and it was 5 below with a 30 mph wind blowing or pouring rain, I might appreciate the skyway more.JMHO *It might have helped their cause(too much speeding traffic/too dangerous) if the rendering actually had a single vehicle on the road rather than the street just 'looking like people drive fast'
May 27, 20169 yr I can't imagine wanting to rent or buy a place where I have to go downstairs, cross the street, ride up another elevator or set of stairs to get to my car.... especially if I need to drive most days - which in Columbus a lot of people do need to do. And especially in a place with nasty winters. I could deal with it - it's not the worst - but it certainly detracts from the desire to live there. Carrying groceries, babies, kids, moving things... ugh... don't want to have to cross a street in the elements to do this at my place of residence.
May 28, 20169 yr I can't imagine wanting to rent or buy a place where I have to go downstairs, cross the street, ride up another elevator or set of stairs to get to my car.... especially if I need to drive most days - which in Columbus a lot of people do need to do. And especially in a place with nasty winters. I could deal with it - it's not the worst - but it certainly detracts from the desire to live there. Carrying groceries, babies, kids, moving things... ugh... don't want to have to cross a street in the elements to do this at my place of residence. See, this is the problem that a lot of people, including obviously the developers, don't seem to get. Not every type of development is going to be for every type of person. This particular development really isn't for people who can't imagine walking across a street to their car without climate control, nor should it be. This is an urban location, and there is no reason to expect that such a location should be completely convenient either to drive or park. If people need to have their car right outside their door, the suburbs offer that. I see absolutely no reason to demand that in Downtown, where owning a car is less and less necessary given car share, transit, bike share and the general increase of walkability in the area. Not a single urban development has had any trouble filling up with residents in Columbus regardless of the parking convenience, and this would be no different. What the developer and the city should do instead is to create a safer pedestrian crossing, including perhaps new signals, a raised street section, etc. It would probably end up being cheaper for the developer to do that, it would increase safety and pedestrian access to all- not only residents- and it would maintain the urban form that outdated skywalks take away from. Ultimately, it is about 2 different mindsets- one that values urban living and all that successful urban vibrancy needs to exist, and one that really doesn't care about that so long as you can stay warmer for 30 feet. Given that Gallery Hop in the dead of winter still seems pretty busy, I suspect that all the worry about cold and rain is overblown anyway. People walk longer distances to get into WalMart.
May 29, 20169 yr I can't imagine wanting to rent or buy a place where I have to go downstairs, cross the street, ride up another elevator or set of stairs to get to my car.... especially if I need to drive most days - which in Columbus a lot of people do need to do. And especially in a place with nasty winters. I could deal with it - it's not the worst - but it certainly detracts from the desire to live there. Carrying groceries, babies, kids, moving things... ugh... don't want to have to cross a street in the elements to do this at my place of residence. I guess you've never lived in an area where you had to rely on street parking? I often have to park 2-3 blocks away from my apartment in Mt. Adams (Cincy), and while it's sometimes a pain in the ass, I've just accepted it as a part of urban living. The trade-off, of course, is that I can walk to several restaurants, bars, and shops, and I have access to public transit (limited and crappy as the Cincy metro may be).
May 29, 20169 yr I can't imagine wanting to rent or buy a place where I have to go downstairs, cross the street, ride up another elevator or set of stairs to get to my car.... especially if I need to drive most days - which in Columbus a lot of people do need to do. And especially in a place with nasty winters. I could deal with it - it's not the worst - but it certainly detracts from the desire to live there. Carrying groceries, babies, kids, moving things... ugh... don't want to have to cross a street in the elements to do this at my place of residence. Understandable. But if that's the case, downtown might not be for you. The surrounding neighborhoods are practically downtown and there are plenty of options available for you that have an attached garage or nearby parking. We should be encouraging more people in downtown Columbus to live this way. Even better, maybe they won't find the parking worth it and many will choose to ditch their cars. The more carless residents downtown, the better. Or at least 2-car households cut down to 1. If you live here, you're probably eating out a lot so most places are easily accessible without a car. If you're dining out all the time, what little groceries you need you can easily get to CVS by walk or Kroger by CBus or Cars2go. Hopefully as downtown densifies, we'll get even more options, like a mini Target. But the goal should be to get less, not more, people downtown who don't use cars.
May 29, 20169 yr I have lived in plenty of places with poor parking and multiple cities' downtowns. While I get that it's perfectly doable to have parking not at your residence, the argument is that it's not a positive in any way - as anyone who has lived with poor parking can certainly attest to. Most people would rather have their parking in their building or at least next to it. Developers and people interested in selling the property understand they will have an easier time selling these with convenient parking. I'm of the view an elevated & covered walkway would be more convenient, and if I was paying a boatload of money to move into a luxury building, I would expect to have convenience. That's the whole argument. I don't think anyone here can actually say it's not more convenient - all that can be said is that enough people will suck it up and deal with it. I don't think it's being demanded either. The demand seems to be the other way around - not incorporating it into the design. The premise being that it will add street activity. Apparently the activity they're looking for is residents crossing the street. I think the impact (economic or otherwise) of forcing that might be overestimated. However, I could be mistaken - It could be open to the public and a way for people to get to the commons from the public garage, in which case there would probably be a bit more impact.
May 31, 20169 yr I have lived in plenty of places with poor parking and multiple cities' downtowns. While I get that it's perfectly doable to have parking not at your residence, the argument is that it's not a positive in any way - as anyone who has lived with poor parking can certainly attest to. Most people would rather have their parking in their building or at least next to it. Developers and people interested in selling the property understand they will have an easier time selling these with convenient parking. I'm of the view an elevated & covered walkway would be more convenient, and if I was paying a boatload of money to move into a luxury building, I would expect to have convenience. That's the whole argument. I don't think anyone here can actually say it's not more convenient - all that can be said is that enough people will suck it up and deal with it. I don't think it's being demanded either. The demand seems to be the other way around - not incorporating it into the design. The premise being that it will add street activity. Apparently the activity they're looking for is residents crossing the street. I think the impact (economic or otherwise) of forcing that might be overestimated. However, I could be mistaken - It could be open to the public and a way for people to get to the commons from the public garage, in which case there would probably be a bit more impact. It is a positive if you want a vibrant streetscape. And again, for those people who place exceptional value over parking convenience, urban development like this probably isn't for them. It is so frustrating to see people constantly trying to pigeonhole suburban amenities into urban development. Downtown Columbus had huge amounts of parking for decades, and yet it was completely dead after 5pm. You can either have urban vibrancy and walkability, or you can have abundant, convenient parking. You cannot have both of them. And I find the whole discussion of convience to be somewhat dishonest anyway. Go to any large box retail in the suburbs and you have huge parking lots in which people are forced to walk from their cars to the store, often at a much greater distance than what the parking garage will be from Two25. And those people do it in every single type of weather, all without any demand for covered space and climate control. Or even safety, for that matter, as shopping center parking lots are often poorly designed for pedestrians. So this idea that people absolutely need these amenities is just not true, because they don't even demand them in suburbia. The bottom line is that if you expect that convenience, you don't buy an apartment in Two25. Everyone has the choice of where to live, and if certain things are important to you that a particular development or location doesn't offer, then you can choose to live somewhere else. Skywalks are ugly and make the streetscape feel closed in. They are outdated in their concept of urban design and in the goal of getting more people on the street. Worse, they seek to eliminate even the basic need to improve street safety by bypassing it altogether. In every way, they are a bad choice.
May 31, 20169 yr Yes, some of the points you make are valid. More people would absolutely walk on the street if that was their only option. Would this create the vitality you're looking for? That's up for debate. I don't think a skywalk will make or break a downtown area, but I do agree having them all over the place will detract from street level activity. However, as with most things in life, there is nuance. Your points: -You can either have urban vibrancy and walkability or you can have abundant, convenient parking. You cannot have both of them. --why not? what prevents it? I don't see an inherent clash here. I guess that hinges on your definition of vibrant, convenient, and abundant though. -Large suburban stores have inconvenient parking --some do, however the person going to the store makes the decision when and if they go there. You will also often find people circling those parking lots trying to get the most convenient parking space... lending credibility to the notion people like convenient things (thus a developer certainly would want to include convenience where they can). And if it's raining or very cold, you will see people dropping people off at the store front and picking them up when they're done. Creating a mess right in front of the entrance. -"The idea people absolutely need these amenities is just not true" --I don't think it was said to be needed. It was very clearly stated it's a nice to have that would make it easier to attract tenants -Skywalks are ugly and make the streetscape feel closed in. --There are more than one type of skywalk and certainly not all are ugly. As for making the streetscape feel closed in, I imagine you're right; however, doesn't density in general do the same thing? -They are outdated in concept of urban design --They are still being used and developed worldwide with dozens of different use cases. They might be outdated for our particular goals, but they definitely still have lots of very valid uses. -They detract from getting more people on the street --Agreed. However, I would argue just simply putting people on the street shouldn't be the goal (maybe in Columbus we need to start somewhere, so I could be wrong on this one). We do want to create more activity and we don't want people isolating themselves - But is forcing residents to cross the street from a parking garage to their condo really the activity we're looking for? Do we really not make any distinction in the activity we're looking for? -They seek to eliminate even the basic need to improve street safety by bypassing it altogether --They do bypass street safety. But I wouldn't think the 2 go together - They should be separate issues. If a street is unsafe, it should be addressed as well. In this particular case, it is right next to a very public space and would therefore still have a big need to ensure the streetscape is safe and pedestrian friendly. -In every way they are a bad choice --I'm sure you can think of one good reason for them if you tried :) Look, I'm not pro skywalks all the time - I'd say most of the time I think they're inappropriate as well. But I do feel the seemingly automatic refusal to even explore the idea is a bit close-minded. Things are usually not black and white.
May 31, 20169 yr author=jking222222 link=topic=29960.msg804603#msg804603 date=1464710791] Yes, some of the points you make are valid. More people would absolutely walk on the street if that was their only option. Would this create the vitality you're looking for? That's up for debate. I don't think a skywalk will make or break a downtown area, but I do agree having them all over the place will detract from street level activity. However, as with most things in life, there is nuance. It's really not up for debate. What is the point of trying to increase residents Downtown if you also build infrastructure to keep them off the sidewalk? Why even move Downtown if you don't value the uban form that creates walkability? No, this single skywalk is not going to destroy Downtown's improving street vibrancy, but it will absolutely be detrimental to it in this particular area. I just don't think intentionally creating dead zones should be something to praise. Your points: -You can either have urban vibrancy and walkability or you can have abundant, convenient parking. You cannot have both of them. --why not? what prevents it? I don't see an inherent clash here. I guess that hinges on your definition of vibrant, convenient, and abundant though. Because pretty much every study done on the matter concludes the same thing- that building for the car only gets you the car and everything that goes with it- traffic, pollution, noise, etc., all things that create an unfriendly, unnattractive environment for pedestrians. Downtown in 1985 had about 65,000 surface and garage parking spaces. Today that number is closer to 40,000. Do you think Downtown has more street activity now or in 1985? There is, contrary to what may seem logical, a pretty direct correlation between a reduction in auto-centric infrastructure and a more vibrant streetscape. -Large suburban stores have inconvenient parking --some do, however the person going to the store makes the decision when and if they go there. You will also often find people circling those parking lots trying to get the most convenient parking space... lending credibility to the notion people like convenient things (thus a developer certainly would want to include convenience where they can). And if it's raining or very cold, you will see people dropping people off at the store front and picking them up when they're done. Creating a mess right in front of the entrance. First, most suburbs are built for the car, so when people drive to these large parking lots, they obviously have to park somewhere. Of course they are going to park as close to the entrance as they can, that should go without saying. The fact that parking in these lots is usually completely free is only more of an incentive to drive, so the choice isn't exactly unbiased to begin with. There is a built-in, nearly mandatory necessity to drive in the suburbs, as development patterns have made it the only really logical choice. Second, you're not really making an argument against what I said. Sure, some people get dropped off, but the reality is that most people are still willing to put up with the weather and walk whatever distance through the lot. Considering that the vast majority of car-based trips, even to the store, are done alone, the situation you describe represents only a very small % of the people shopping. So why are most people willing to put up with walking sometimes longer distances in bad weather like that? I think the answer to that is pretty simple- because the perception is that the destination offers a greater benefit than the inconvenience to get there. When that principle is applied to Two25, when then is the perception of benefit? Is the benefit of living in a walkable, urban area greater than the lack of convenience of abundant free parking or having to walk 40 feet across a street? I would certainly think that the attractiveness of the former is far superior to the supposed negative of the latter, or at least to the demographic of people that would be interested in living there. -"The idea people absolutely need these amenities is just not true" --I don't think it was said to be needed. It was very clearly stated it's a nice to have that would make it easier to attract tenants I think this kind of assumes that there would be any hardship in attracting residents to begin with, so there is a need, or at least a desire, to provide such extra conveniences. However, the urban market in Columbus has a greater than 96% occupancy with residential units. There has not been a single project in the last 5 years at least that has had any trouble finding tenants, many of which with far less parking convenience than Two25 will have even without a skywalk. And again, there is also the assumption that every potential resident will not only own a car, but will want to drive everywhere even if they did. -Skywalks are ugly and make the streetscape feel closed in. --There are more than one type of skywalk and certainly not all are ugly. As for making the streetscape feel closed in, I imagine you're right; however, doesn't density in general do the same thing? Skywalks can certainly be better designed, like the one that goes from the Hilton to the convention center, but they're ugly in the way that they detract from the view along the street. Does South High look better or worse without the City Center skywalk? To me the comparison would be like having 7ft ceilings and 20ft ceilings in your home. At least buildings on either side of the street leave an open view to the sky and for long distances in front of you, something that skywalks directly interrupt. -They are outdated in concept of urban design --They are still being used and developed worldwide with dozens of different use cases. They might be outdated for our particular goals, but they definitely still have lots of very valid uses. I am not saying that no skywalk can ever again be useful, but if they're not contributing to the goal of activating Downtown steets, they need to be heavily scrutinized. If it's just going to be built to provide a selling point to a few residents, the cost is too high and its actual usefulness is too limited. -They detract from getting more people on the street --Agreed. However, I would argue just simply putting people on the street shouldn't be the goal (maybe in Columbus we need to start somewhere, so I could be wrong on this one). We do want to create more activity and we don't want people isolating themselves - But is forcing residents to cross the street from a parking garage to their condo really the activity we're looking for? Do we really not make any distinction in the activity we're looking for? I remember reading about a study that showed that skywalks didn't just impact how people crossed a street. The study was about impacts to local businesses before and after construction, and that those businesses actually saw declines as it removed the casual shopper element. When people were on the street, they were more likely to window shop and patronize businesses, but when they could simply cross the street above it all, that aspect disappeared because it forced those businesses into the destination role. So it isn't just that skywalks only impact how people cross the street, but how they interact with the street and whatever businesses may be near it. -They seek to eliminate even the basic need to improve street safety by bypassing it altogether --They do bypass street safety. But I wouldn't think the 2 go together - They should be separate issues. If a street is unsafe, it should be addressed as well. In this particular case, it is right next to a very public space and would therefore still have a big need to ensure the streetscape is safe and pedestrian friendly. The developer, however, specifically stated that safety was a key factor in why they wanted to build it. So why wouldn't they just partner with the city to upgrade the crossing? Even if there is a safety issue, building the skywalk makes those pedestrian improvements less likely. The improved safety literally only benefits the small number of residents and no one else. -In every way they are a bad choice --I'm sure you can think of one good reason for them if you tried :) Crossing a river filled with crocodiles? Look, I'm not pro skywalks all the time - I'd say most of the time I think they're inappropriate as well. But I do feel the seemingly automatic refusal to even explore the idea is a bit close-minded. Things are usually not black and white. I agree it is not always black and white, but in this case, I see no reason to be supportive of it.
June 1, 20169 yr Do you have these studies available (or references) that you're using to prove your points? I'd be interested in reading them and seeing what they're applicable to. I get that the conventional wisdom nowadays is that skywalks are bad. I also have seen time and time again people getting on a bandwagon and then putting the blinders on, which is what I try to stay vigilant against. I do play devil's advocate more than I probably should. But often we get a snippet in the news or an article on a forum like this and then apply the general notion of the study to an area the study didn't cover or in a way that was unintended. And I'm certainly skeptical when it comes to conventional wisdom - which it seems is being applied to a few areas in your argument.
June 1, 20169 yr Do you have these studies available (or references) that you're using to prove your points? I'd be interested in reading them and seeing what they're applicable to. I get that the conventional wisdom nowadays is that skywalks are bad. I also have seen time and time again people getting on a bandwagon and then putting the blinders on, which is what I try to stay vigilant against. I do play devil's advocate more than I probably should. But often we get a snippet in the news or an article on a forum like this and then apply the general notion of the study to an area the study didn't cover or in a way that was unintended. And I'm certainly skeptical when it comes to conventional wisdom - which it seems is being applied to a few areas in your argument. I will do some searches for links on the matter. The particular study I'm referencing was a few years ago, but I will look for it. In the meantime, in my search I am learning more about how skywalks came about. As expected, they came into favor to keep people out of the street due to the danger of traffic. In Cincinnati, for example, skywalks there were first proposed in 1957, but city leadership repeatedly rejected them until the federal government began offering "urban renewal" funds to build them (yes, those two words that have come to symbolize the very destruction of the urban city) in 1971. They also rose for retailers in the core to compete with the growing options of enclosed suburban malls. If there isn't a more clear signal as to how outdated skywalks are to the concept of rebuilding urban vibrancy, I am not sure what is. Still, I will provide some links.
June 1, 20169 yr So here are a few links. The first is http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/realestate/rethinking-skyways-and-tunnels.html. This 2005 article from the NYT had this to say: Two dozen cities across the country pursued similar plans over the last 30 years, building skywalks and underground retail catacombs to keep businesses and stores from fleeing to suburbs and shopping malls. They ensconced shoppers and office workers in well-lighted, climate-controlled environments and insulated them from crime, cold and urban blight. But now, many of these cities are gripped with builders' remorse. They say the skyways and tunnels have choked off pedestrian traffic, hurt street-level retailers and limited development in the city core. The article highlights several cities nationally who, at the time, were recognizing their skywalk systems as complete failures in terms of getting people on the street. At the time of the article, the full-scale revitalization of downtowns was just beginning, but all of these cities had recognized long before that that they were hurting their efforts. More recently, the fight against the Cleveland casino skywalk: http://www.citylab.com/design/2013/04/if-other-cities-are-demolishing-skywalks-why-does-cleveland-want-new-one/5291/ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0886779813000941 Here is an extensive study globally of skywalks and other pedestrian grade separation systems. You will have to pay for it though. In my searches, I have also noticed that skywalks are really only getting praise where they are still relatively new: Asia, particularly as a safety measure alone in extremely congested cities like Mumbai. Otherwise, in the US or North America in general, their defense seems limited almost exclusively to locations that have very harsh winters- Minneapolis, Montreal, etc.
Create an account or sign in to comment